Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

[Phatscotty]

And theres a big difference between a semi-automatic weapon, and your right to bear arms.

You would have a point if it read "The right of the people to keep and bear flintlock muskets shall not be infringed." But it doesn't, so you dont, because you're a cunt.
In defense of country, tyranny or self, you don't bring a knife to a gunfight, douche.

but you somehow seem to think the second amendment applies to "muskets" and not "arms".

It clearly says arms

And what you are supporting here is clearly trying to force all law abiding citizens to bring a knife to a gun fight at the criminals choosing. Cunt isn't a strong enough word...

[Symmetry]

Ya know, there have been slaves who did not mind slavery. Now sure, that doesn't fit the images many people flash to when their mind registers slavery. But I'm not talking about the runaway slave getting punished, or the female slave being taken every night by the owner, but I am talking about the older slaves, the slaves that had been trained for too long to think any other way, the slave who is comfortable in the fact he no longer needs to slave to plant and grow and produce the food, he only needs to consume it at this point, the slave who believed in being a good slave, the slave who would narc out other slaves, just to get an extra biscuit for dinner. They didn't have to do as much work as the younger slaves, and after a while they think they are the head slave, and can boss around other slaves in the name of the slave-owner. The old slave thinks he has it is easy and can relax more, and he thinks his job is to run the plantation when the master is not around, and tell the other slaves how to live and what is the wrong way to do something and that his way is the best way.

That's who you remind me of Fitz. The slave that kissed their masters ass and sold out all their brothers for an an extra biscuit.

A new low, Scotty.

AAftiz pushing as hard as he can to take away American's rights....yes, I'm aware of the low....

You get away with it Symm because you are a Brit and don't have a clue, but not him

I think effectively calling him an Uncle Tom is pretty shitty.

[HapSmo19]

Ya know, there have been slaves who did not mind slavery. Now sure, that doesn't fit the images many people flash to when their mind registers slavery. But I'm not talking about the runaway slave getting punished, or the female slave being taken every night by the owner, but I am talking about the older slaves, the slaves that had been trained for too long to think any other way, the slave who is comfortable in the fact he no longer needs to slave to plant and grow and produce the food, he only needs to consume it at this point, the slave who believed in being a good slave, the slave who would narc out other slaves, just to get an extra biscuit for dinner. They didn't have to do as much work as the younger slaves, and after a while they think they are the head slave, and can boss around other slaves in the name of the slave-owner. The old slave thinks he has it is easy and can relax more, and he thinks his job is to run the plantation when the master is not around, and tell the other slaves how to live and what is the wrong way to do something and that his way is the best way.

That's who you remind me of Fitz. The slave that kissed their masters ass and sold out all their brothers for an an extra biscuit.

A new low, Scotty.

AAftiz pushing as hard as he can to take away American's rights....yes, I'm aware of the low....

You get away with it Symm because you are a Brit and don't have a clue, but not him

I think effectively calling him an Uncle Tom is pretty shitty.

I think you're pretty shitty.

[Phatscotty]

Ya know, there have been slaves who did not mind slavery. Now sure, that doesn't fit the images many people flash to when their mind registers slavery. But I'm not talking about the runaway slave getting punished, or the female slave being taken every night by the owner, but I am talking about the older slaves, the slaves that had been trained for too long to think any other way, the slave who is comfortable in the fact he no longer needs to slave to plant and grow and produce the food, he only needs to consume it at this point, the slave who believed in being a good slave, the slave who would narc out other slaves, just to get an extra biscuit for dinner. They didn't have to do as much work as the younger slaves, and after a while they think they are the head slave, and can boss around other slaves in the name of the slave-owner. The old slave thinks he has it is easy and can relax more, and he thinks his job is to run the plantation when the master is not around, and tell the other slaves how to live and what is the wrong way to do something and that his way is the best way.

That's who you remind me of Fitz. The slave that kissed their masters ass and sold out all their brothers for an an extra biscuit.

A new low, Scotty.

AAftiz pushing as hard as he can to take away American's rights....yes, I'm aware of the low....

You get away with it Symm because you are a Brit and don't have a clue, but not him

I think effectively calling him an Uncle Tom is pretty shitty.

You think I called him an Uncle Tom? How fucking priceless....Don't you think you should know what you are talking about? Dipshit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1CLPhz0DHM&t=3m08s

[Symmetry]

Ya know, there have been slaves who did not mind slavery. Now sure, that doesn't fit the images many people flash to when their mind registers slavery. But I'm not talking about the runaway slave getting punished, or the female slave being taken every night by the owner, but I am talking about the older slaves, the slaves that had been trained for too long to think any other way, the slave who is comfortable in the fact he no longer needs to slave to plant and grow and produce the food, he only needs to consume it at this point, the slave who believed in being a good slave, the slave who would narc out other slaves, just to get an extra biscuit for dinner. They didn't have to do as much work as the younger slaves, and after a while they think they are the head slave, and can boss around other slaves in the name of the slave-owner. The old slave thinks he has it is easy and can relax more, and he thinks his job is to run the plantation when the master is not around, and tell the other slaves how to live and what is the wrong way to do something and that his way is the best way.

That's who you remind me of Fitz. The slave that kissed their masters ass and sold out all their brothers for an an extra biscuit.

A new low, Scotty.

AAftiz pushing as hard as he can to take away American's rights....yes, I'm aware of the low....

You get away with it Symm because you are a Brit and don't have a clue, but not him

I think effectively calling him an Uncle Tom is pretty shitty.

You think I called him an Uncle Tom? How fucking priceless....Don't you think you should know what you are talking about? Dipshit

Yes, that's what I think.

The phrase "Uncle Tom" has also become an epithet for a person who is slavish and excessively subservient to perceived authority figures, particularly a black person who behaves in a subservient manner to white people; or any person perceived to be a participant in the oppression of their own group.[1][2] The negative epithet is the result of later works derived from the original novel.

You said that AAFitz was like a slave who has become excessively subservient, and was oppressing his own people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom

We done? Or are you just here to flame?

[spurgistan]

And theres a big difference between a semi-automatic weapon, and your right to bear arms.

You would have a point if it read "The right of the people to keep and bear flintlock muskets shall not be infringed." But it doesn't, so you dont, because you're a cunt.
In defense of country, tyranny or self, you don't bring a knife to a gunfight, douche.

So, where are your missile batteries? Your missile defense system? Why aren't you fighting to legalize nuclear submarines for civilian use? Why do we get military-grade defense systems for civilian use sometimes, but not others?

[Juan_Bottom]

The personal responsibility argument is bullshit. I'm sure that you're very responsible with your pistols, but that argument falls to bits when you're talking about someone who's mental and violent. The "personal responsibility" argument assumes that there are no Jared Loughners out there.

And yet it was the liberals who demanded that no person can be involuntarily treated for mental illnesses without first committing a crime. If their first crime is to kill people, then that's what happens with such a system. You don't get to then go punish all the other people who don't have mental illnesses and haven't committed crimes just because the liberal policy of the past has backfired. You have no right to demand that the government take away the rights of other people simply because you don't like the right.

So you have a Constitutional right to bear arms, which I'm not disputing. But you don't believe that mentally ill people have Constitutional rights?
You're all over the board on this.

This has nothing to do with which "rights" we like or dislike. Guns are awesome. Unfortunately people are killing children with them all too often. This is about reality.

No there isn't a difference. Semi-automatics make it easier for people to defend themselves better, period.

Your assumption is bullshit and backed up by more bullshit, because automobiles and abortions did not exist at the time either, and both do unbelievable damage.

Try to get abortions outlawed and ban all cars that can do over 70 mph, and then you will be intellectually honest with your comments.

Ok so I guess that we have a reached a deal.

We do ban some cars from the market, and we have laws many laws to regulate vehicles. In fact you have to pass a test with an instructor in order to have a driver's license, which you'll note, is something we've already asked for. We're asking for those same regulations for guns.

Knives can do unbelievable damage, so why aren't they banned? Cars can do unbelievable damage, so why aren't they banned? It's the PERSON committing the crime who should be punished for the crime, not all people who own the tool used.

Nobody is being punished here.
What is the count between the Chinese stabber and the Sandyhook shooting? Nobody died in China, yet the victim count only differs by two.

[Phatscotty]

And theres a big difference between a semi-automatic weapon, and your right to bear arms.

You would have a point if it read "The right of the people to keep and bear flintlock muskets shall not be infringed." But it doesn't, so you dont, because you're a cunt.
In defense of country, tyranny or self, you don't bring a knife to a gunfight, douche.

So, where are your missile batteries? Your missile defense system? Why aren't you fighting to legalize nuclear submarines for civilian use? Why do we get military-grade defense systems for civilian use sometimes, but not others?

yer bein dum

[Juan_Bottom]

He is, but he also has a point.
We don't even allow Iran or North Korea to have a lot of that stuff.

[Night Strike]

And theres a big difference between a semi-automatic weapon, and your right to bear arms.

You would have a point if it read "The right of the people to keep and bear flintlock muskets shall not be infringed." But it doesn't, so you dont, because you're a cunt.
In defense of country, tyranny or self, you don't bring a knife to a gunfight, douche.

So, where are your missile batteries? Your missile defense system? Why aren't you fighting to legalize nuclear submarines for civilian use? Why do we get military-grade defense systems for civilian use sometimes, but not others?

And my point that I stated earlier that everyone conveniently ignored: The government bans citizens from having the same weapons they have, and then they work to ban all guns from citizens under the guise of the guns the citizens have being unable to withstand the guns the government has. It's all designed to eliminate guns from private citizens, not to protect people.

[Phatscotty]

The second amendment is too important. There is no room for tinkering and playing around with these touchy feely knee-jerk reactions and demands. So is our first amendment for that matter.

That's why they are #1 and #2.

[Juan_Bottom]

And theres a big difference between a semi-automatic weapon, and your right to bear arms.

You would have a point if it read "The right of the people to keep and bear flintlock muskets shall not be infringed." But it doesn't, so you dont, because you're a cunt.
In defense of country, tyranny or self, you don't bring a knife to a gunfight, douche.

So, where are your missile batteries? Your missile defense system? Why aren't you fighting to legalize nuclear submarines for civilian use? Why do we get military-grade defense systems for civilian use sometimes, but not others?

And my point that I stated earlier that everyone conveniently ignored: The government bans citizens from having the same weapons they have, and then they work to ban all guns from citizens under the guise of the guns the citizens have being unable to withstand the guns the government has. It's all designed to eliminate guns from private citizens, not to protect people.

That's a fantasy.

The second amendment is too important. There is no room for tinkering and playing around with these touchy feely knee-jerk reactions and demands. So is our first amendment for that matter.

That's why they are #1 and #2.

We've had like, 60 mass shootings plus what, like 100,000 Americans shot to death in the past 20 years. This is not a knee-jerk reaction, this is us not ignoring the problem.

[HapSmo19]

He is, but he also has a point.

No he doesn't. If you made a list of American individuals that could both afford and wanted the responsibility of maintaining/securing a missle battery, missle defense system or a nuclear attack submarine, I think you would have a list with about zero names on it.
Anyway...Juan, remind me where you stand on voter ID again?

[Symmetry]

He is, but he also has a point.

No he doesn't. If you made a list of American individuals that could both afford and wanted the responsibility of maintaining/securing a missle battery, missle defense system or a nuclear attack submarine, I think you would have a list with about zero names on it.

But should they have the right to? The point is merely a reductio ad absurdum of what the right to bear arms means.

[HapSmo19]

And theres a big difference between a semi-automatic weapon, and your right to bear arms.

You would have a point if it read "The right of the people to keep and bear flintlock muskets shall not be infringed." But it doesn't, so you dont, because you're a cunt.
In defense of country, tyranny or self, you don't bring a knife to a gunfight, douche.

So, where are your missile batteries? Your missile defense system? Why aren't you fighting to legalize nuclear submarines for civilian use? Why do we get military-grade defense systems for civilian use sometimes, but not others?

And my point that I stated earlier that everyone conveniently ignored: The government bans citizens from having the same weapons they have, and then they work to ban all guns from citizens under the guise of the guns the citizens have being unable to withstand the guns the government has. It's all designed to eliminate guns from private citizens, not to protect people.

That's a fantasy.

The second amendment is too important. There is no room for tinkering and playing around with these touchy feely knee-jerk reactions and demands. So is our first amendment for that matter.

That's why they are #1 and #2.

We've had like, 60 mass shootings plus what, like 100,000 Americans shot to death in the past 20 years. This is not a knee-jerk reaction, this is us not ignoring the problem.

Well, the world has had what, like 100-million plus people murdered by tyrannical governments of a disarmed people over the last 100 years. This is us not ignoring history.

[HapSmo19]

And, Juan, you wanna talk about who is comitting the vast majority of those 100,000 gun-related murders or is that a problem you'd rather ignore?

[Symmetry]

And, Juan, you wanna talk about who is comitting the vast majority of those 100,000 gun-related murders or is that a problem you'd rather ignore?

Is it people with guns?

[Juan_Bottom]

Well, the world has had what, like 100-million plus people murdered by tyrannical governments of a disarmed people over the last 100 years. This is us not ignoring history.

Yes it is. The idea of overthrowing a tyrannical and democratically-elected government is pure fantasy. If you want to stop an American dictator, then all you need to do is participate in politics and vote.
Our government, and our nation are not conducive to dictators. In John Adam's book, which he wrote while in France, he outlines his framework for the American 3-branch government, and provides historical references for everything. His book was such a terrific argument that our government was directly modeled on it. And remember, this is the guy who predicted the rise of Napoleon exactly. Now, for an example of how he planned to prevent dictators; Adams designed the legislature, that's congress, to be corruptible by what he called "the natural elite" of America. And he designed the Executive branch to be above that corruption, to allow the people to take their country back by just supporting the executive. He assumed, rightly so, that the independent spirit of the states would be further still another check on a tyrannical federal government. I mean, read the book, it's pretty ingenious.
The right to bear arms was written for a frontier nation. We had hostile tribes to our left, and Spain, France, and England on our right. And we had almost no standing army, and no navy. ANNNND even after the Treaty of Paris we still had English troops holed up in American forts. It wasn't just about overthrowing a dictator.

And furthermore, you're ignoring recent American events. Ignoring the mass-killings of schoolchildren as the price for your right to hypothetically overthrow a dictator that can never be.

And, Juan, you wanna talk about who is comitting the vast majority of those 100,000 gun-related murders or is that a problem you'd rather ignore?

Is it people with guns?

Is it a tyrannical government?

[Phatscotty]

If you don't like the rights of American's, you know what you can do.

If you stick around and try to take our rights away, we will defeat you.

The taking away of American's rifles is the only fantasy here. Fantasize at your own risk...

[Juan_Bottom]

If you don't like the rights of American's, you know what you can do.

If you stick around and try to take our rights away, we will defeat you.

The taking away of American's rifles is the only fantasy here

It's your fantasy, because we have all repeatedly said we do not want to take away rifles.

[Phatscotty]

If you don't like the rights of American's, you know what you can do.

If you stick around and try to take our rights away, we will defeat you.

The taking away of American's rifles is the only fantasy here

It's your fantasy, because we have all repeatedly said we do not want to take away rifles.

then I will chalk you up as not wanting to take away our rifles. There are plenty of others who are wanting that

[spurgistan]

If you don't like the rights of American's, you know what you can do.

If you stick around and try to take our rights away, we will defeat you.

The taking away of American's rifles is the only fantasy here

It's your fantasy, because we have all repeatedly said we do not want to take away rifles.

then I will chalk you up as not wanting to take away our rifles. There are plenty of others who are wanting that

No, there really aren't. And particularly nobody in any position of power, which currently is bought and paid for by the gun lobby.

[HapSmo19]

And furthermore, you're ignoring recent American events. Ignoring the mass-killings of schoolchildren...

The rest of that bullshit aside,...so, you're for ending this problem tomorrow by putting armed security officers in schools? I agree. Let's stop ignoring and politicizing the problem. I'm thinking one at every vehicle entrance that will monitor anyone entering the grounds and the parking lot, two inside the school(out of sight, in hidden offices, monitoring entrances) and a two-man sniper team, in full ghillie, belly-crawling the grounds. I'm sure there are plenty of well-trained, unemployed soldiers that would love this job and to get a piece of that teachers union loot.
I'm happy to hear you're finally ready to do something meaningful to protect the children.

[Night Strike]

Well, the world has had what, like 100-million plus people murdered by tyrannical governments of a disarmed people over the last 100 years. This is us not ignoring history.

Yes it is. The idea of overthrowing a tyrannical and democratically-elected government is pure fantasy. If you want to stop an American dictator, then all you need to do is participate in politics and vote.
Our government, and our nation are not conducive to dictators. In John Adam's book, which he wrote while in France, he outlines his framework for the American 3-branch government, and provides historical references for everything. His book was such a terrific argument that our government was directly modeled on it. And remember, this is the guy who predicted the rise of Napoleon exactly. Now, for an example of how he planned to prevent dictators; Adams designed the legislature, that's congress, to be corruptible by what he called "the natural elite" of America. And he designed the Executive branch to be above that corruption, to allow the people to take their country back by just supporting the executive. He assumed, rightly so, that the independent spirit of the states would be further still another check on a tyrannical federal government. I mean, read the book, it's pretty ingenious.

Funny, but you're one of those who vehemently argues AGAINST states rights and for the supremacy of the feds in everything, so why are you now trumpeting it as a legitimate check on the federal government?

The right to bear arms was written for a frontier nation. We had hostile tribes to our left, and Spain, France, and England on our right. And we had almost no standing army, and no navy. ANNNND even after the Treaty of Paris we still had English troops holed up in American forts. It wasn't just about overthrowing a dictator.

No, those rights were specifically written into the Constitution because they are natural human rights that no government should ever be allowed to infringe upon. But yet you're perfectly fine with the government infringing on the ones you don't like.

And furthermore, you're ignoring recent American events. Ignoring the mass-killings of schoolchildren as the price for your right to hypothetically overthrow a dictator that can never be.

Why must the government DO something? Why must there always be more governmental regulations, laws, and spending for every event that happens in the country? When does the encroachment of the government on law-abiding citizens ever end?

[Metsfanmax]

Funny, but you're one of those who vehemently argues AGAINST states rights and for the supremacy of the feds in everything, so why are you now trumpeting it as a legitimate check on the federal government?

You may find this hard to believe, but not everyone approaches making governmental policy from absolutist, no-compromise standards.